The wrapper project
Thu Aug 21 16:02:26 CEST 2003
Joe Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>>Joe Armstrong wrote:
>>>2) The components must communicate by asynchronous message passing
>>I have an exception to consider:
>>When composing subcomponents from components,
> Uugh - do you mean the other way around?
> You make components from sub-components ... ????
A bad case of one too many edits in a message...
>>*and* a crashing subcomponent shall crash the entire component,
>>*then* synchronous communication is appropriate.
> I assume you meant that
> 1) components are made from sub-components
> 2) if a sub-component crashes you want the component to crash
> To do this (if that's what you meant) I would like asynchronous messages.
> The problem with synchronous messages is that you can't implement
> them. The laws of physics preclude this. You need to send a message
> between the systems (which even at the speed of light takes finite
> time) to send information between the systems - you also change the
To give any sense to the moniker "asynchronous communication", you need
to define something sensible for "synchronous communication".
Which, in my book, means that each request is guaranteed to be followed
by a response, with no intermediate external activity of the server object.
More information about the erlang-questions